Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Ajaykumar Parshottamdas Trivedi & vs Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority ... on 26 April, 2017

Author: R.Subhash Reddy

Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi

                 C/WPPIL/31/2017                                              ORDER




                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                            WRIT PETITION (PIL) NO. 31 of 2017

         ==========================================================
              AJAYKUMAR PARSHOTTAMDAS TRIVEDI & 1....Applicant(s)
                                  Versus
           AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & 2....Opponent(s)
         ==========================================================
         Appearance:
         PARTY-IN-PERSON, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 - 2
         MR MITUL K SHELAT, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 3
         MR SATYAM Y CHHAYA, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 2
         MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, AG WITH MS SK VISHEN, ADVOCATE for the
         Opponent(s) No. 1
         ==========================================================

          CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH
                 REDDY
                 and
                 HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI

                                     Date : 26/04/2017


                                      ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY)

1. ADMIT. EXPEDITED. Registry is directed to delete this matter from the caption `for orders'.

2. Additional affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent no.3. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the said affidavit reads as under:

"4. I state that as per the Allotment Order dated 15.7.2003, the Answering Respondent has Page 1 of 2 HC-NIC Page 1 of 2 Created On Sun Aug 13 11:29:40 IST 2017 C/WPPIL/31/2017 ORDER been using the said plot no 67 as a playground and the said plot is made available for public use from 5:30 am to 7:30 am and from 5:30 pm to 10 pm. I state that the said plot shall continue to remain open to the general public before and after school hours as per the said allotment order.
5. I state that the Answering Respondent will not permit the parents of the Answering Respondent's School to park their vehicles within the playground situated on said plot no 67 during school hours."

3. The respondent no.3 shall abide by the statement made in the aforesaid paragraphs of the additional affidavit until further orders. Liberty is granted to the petitioner to move appropriate application for final hearing after the pleadings are complete.

(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) Srilatha Page 2 of 2 HC-NIC Page 2 of 2 Created On Sun Aug 13 11:29:40 IST 2017